Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 2, 2017 1:00am-2:01am PST

1:00 am
necessarily do that. i'm just going to try to make a motion to approve and see where we are. i'm going to appropriates -- and please help me staff, for all of the maximum amendments for mitigation for construction with the school next door, working hand in hand with the school district as well as the principal to make sure that air pollution, disruption, all things that could and possibly be dangerous to kids are considered and taken care of. i believe commissioner johnson maybe has another item or two to try to add to the weight and conditions of this approval. >>commissioner johnson: i can say we can go down the list. i think there were a number of changes that people wanted to see, but i'm only supporting this project if the revocation hearing is scheduled in 18 months, which just to explain entitlements do go away after a period of time, but the commission has to take an affirmative action to actually revoke a permission, and that has actually never happened.
1:01 am
and this is a case where i would want to see that happen, and we can talk to the city attorney about how phase approvals work. i don't want it to just be an excavation project and they put a backhoe on it and that's it. i would want there to be -- the hearing is scheduled, unless there is a serious movement towards phase completion for the project. >>commissioner johnson: >> supervisor: do i hear a second? >>commissioner fong: well, i make a motion. are you adding that second? >>commissioner johnson: yes. >> supervisor: shall i call the question? commissioner moore. >>commissioner moore: i'd like to make a general comment for the record. i believe the state density bonus law has flaws with it, and if you apply it equitably
1:02 am
across the state of california which is experiencing growth, we're never going to get where we're trying to go, so i want to leave that sitting in the room here because there is something which needs to be considered at a deeper level regarding the particular provisions of that bond. >>commissioner fong: exactly. >>vice president richards: commissioner sucre. >> the first thing would be that department staff would work with the department sponsor to craft a construction mitigation program in consultation with the school to address concerns about noise, air quality, and health and safety, dust, and access, so that one seems clear, all right, in terms of its intent. the second one, i think we need, in terms of scheduling the revocation hearing, i think we need to be clear about what
1:03 am
the milestones are for that in terms of the project. so typically, a sponsor would be required to file for a conditional use -- all right. they obtain their conditional use authorization, they go through their appeal period. they would then file their site permit, and then, subsequent to the site permit, they file a series of architectural addenda that would authorize them to build things like the foundation, the mechanical, etcetera, etcetera. so i think for us to move forward in a revocation hearing, we need to be clear with what the met rikz are that would trigger the revocation for lack of construction. does that make sense? >>commissioner johnson: no, it makes sense. my understanding is there are phase approvals of projects, so there were phase drawings that add in as you say, where the water pipes are and where is everything, and then, there's a
1:04 am
series of permits that have to come from other departments both to allow for the actual construction and to approve those architectural drawing that have more detail in them. my understanding is those are generally split into phasing, so it depends on whether -- it's the size of the project or not. >> it's actually not phasing, it's -- there's a site permit which is typically first, and then there are what are called addendum, and then, there's the electrical or the mechanical or that sort of thing. it wouldn't be built in sort of phases, per se, it's just how the permits are issued. >>commissioner johnson: so i guess my question is, the -- there's a series of addendum, and they require permits that come from other departments. and i'm just maybe -- this is my question, either for the attorney or you guys, what is the next phase after that, because there are projects
1:05 am
where all or most of that process happens but then, you look, and it's still just an empty lot with, like, a shovel in the ground to count as, like, they're doing the excavation, and so what i want to try to get to is -- what i would want to see is substantial progress in construction. you may not have a finished building in 18 months, but you certainly would have piles drive and, like, something happening. more than just a piece of equipment on the ground, right? >> so to provide an example. the mission sadly has an example directly across from the mission theater project where there's the structure of the building, just sort of sitting there that was approved for a gym back in 2002. but the sponsor in that case has just been consistently allowed by dbi to just renew their permit while they work toward the addenda, so one
1:06 am
thing the project could do is discuss completion of the work relative to the approvals. that would be a little hard to guesstimate, but if you gave us enough direction in terms of the metrics of where you want to see progress, that might be something to add into this. >> loper? >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. just to put some context on how long it's taking site permits or building permits to get to a construction phase, 18 months is very tight. bob tillman has actually already filed his site permit, which you should probably take as an indication that he is doing as much as he can to start the construction process if he gets through the approval process, but 18 months is a very, very tight turnaround. i know it doesn't sound like a tight turnaround, but it is. and a lot of it is actually
1:07 am
outside the hands of the project sponsor. the city planning department's colleagues at the building department are completely overwhelmed just the way city planning is, so sometimes building permits will sit and languish at various stations waiting for somebody to come and pick it out, and it can take a long time, just based on workload for something to finally get issued. all that being said, there is a condition of approval that talks about valid, and it talks about a building or site permit being issued within three years. i think that if that condition is just changed to 18 months, with the idea that in 18 months, we'd be able to come back here and talk about how much progress we've made and hopefully be able to talk about getting ready or maybe we've already started grading or maybe even going down into -- going down into a basement level, that that would be something that we could do.
1:08 am
but i'd hate to be in a position where you set a hard deadline that -- for reasons that have nothing to do with the sponsor cannot be meet, but i think if you'd like to talk about what may be acceptable. >>vice president richards: just as an aside, i look for to dbi's response. commissioner moore? >>commissioner moore: architect bob, would you mind coming to the microphone. schematic design goes into -- >>vice president richards: i'll apologize. one thing is because of the changes we've made in the very recent future, we've got a little bit of work to do to get the site permits revised, right? and then just to -- so the way it works is when we -- when we do pull a site permit which is,
1:09 am
unfortunately, taking a long time is -- as you probably all know, that doesn't give us the right to put a shovel in the ground, right? we've then got to go through the addendum process, and it's hard to say today, exactly -- you know, i think you're allowed to up to seven addenda, and depending on how you organize it, we might do it in less addenda, and typically, the first one would be shoring and underpinning and excavation, so it's actually hard to say when we could start digging in the ground. >>commissioner moore: actually, why don't you go through the schematic in the ground, you haven't done any working drawings on this project, i assume, to put this into the reality of what's happening at dbi and the rest of the city, there's not a single construction company coming forward to bid on that job because there are more than 5,000 units that are looking for seismic retrofits and they
1:10 am
have to have it done by 2019. it's impossible to find anybody bidding on anything. >> okay. i didn't understand your question exactly at first. so again, we have not -- we have some schematic design to complete because we've revised the design. once we do that, we go into design development, go into the systems, start to engineer the project. we really haven't in any way engineered the project yet, although we go on basic engineers principles at this point, so we need to bring in the engineers consultants, then we go into the construction documents which are the same as building permit documents, which we would really detail the buildings, and as commissioner moore is stating, we can't really get a real bid or negotiated contract until we have the construction documents almost done. i think the intent would be to
1:11 am
move this thing along quickly, but some of those -- as the architect sitting here listening -- and i understand the desire to avoid a situation where the site sits there unbuilt, there just are some realities of how long it takes, and it's -- you know, as mark loper says, if there's some way to -- you know, to come back and report on progress, that seems like a reasonable way to do this. commissioner moore, does that answer -- >>commissioner moore: you answered my question, thank you. >> commissioners, if i may be of some assistance here. kate stacey from the city attorney's office. if you look at conditions 1, 2, and 3 of the conditional use permit, they all have to do with timing of pulling permits and undertaking construction, so condition number 1 is really the validity question. it currently says three years. if the commission shortened that, that's the condition that should be amended.
1:12 am
condition number 2 is -- about these kinds of timing issues, so if the commission were going to shorten this -- the validity of the cu, it should be shortened in number 1, and then, number 2 should reflect that same shorter time period, but you will be having a hearing at which the project sponsor could come back and talk to you about progress and problems. and then, condition 3 is really about this diligent pursuit project that i think is the second part of what commissioner johnson has asked for so the condition currently states that construction must commence during the time required by the department of building inspection and be
1:13 am
continued diligently to completion. failure to do so shall be grounds for the commission to can be revoking approval. i don't know off the top of my head what that dbi time period is, but you have conditions already that allow the commission to monitor this. it's really just a question of changing those time frames in conditions 1 and 2, and then, to monitor, also, the ongoing diligence of construction activities in condition number 3. >>vice president richards: commissioner johnson? >>commissioner johnson: thank you. so you saw those there, and it was intentional. my -- the idea of the revocation hearing. i didn't make that up out of nowhere. so i think definitely, i would -- it is -- i understand that we are in a labor crunch in the construction industry at this point in time, and so that
1:14 am
is challenging. but we also, in terms of being able to make progress and getting permits, we do have a mayor's executive directive, which is asking all agencies, including dbi, to reramp their processes and staffing to be able to process things faster, so the days of things just languishing until, you know, the four horsemen come down, they really should be done, and particularly in the next year to two years when this executi executive directive due and people are filing plans, so to speak, and doing what they need to do to get those timelines in order. i do think that because this is a challenging project, and there are ways that our discussion is really being constricted in terms of lots of areas of the project that we have discussed, there are areas where it's not constricted. like, if -- this is the project that we are going to approve, it needs to happen or not happen.
1:15 am
in terms of item 2, the one thing i would say is it is a little bit wishy washy because it basically says if the project sponsor doesn't apply for the renewal beyond the three years, then there's a hearing, and what i'm saying is strengthen that to have a hearing and deny the permit -- deny the entitlement if there's not progress on the project, which is a different thing. because the dbi could say, xy, and z, and the four horsemen come down, and i'm just saying progress needs to be made. maybe 18 months is too short, but three years is too long. we can consider 24 months, but not just whether or not there's -- a -- an application to reauthorize the entitlement,
1:16 am
but there has to not actual progress on the construction of the project. >> commissioners, maybe instead of trying to craft specific metrics, the thing to be to say you prefer to have a hearing in two years. it's your discretion to revoke or not. you could consider the progress, whether there was applications made, whether there was due diligences, if there were delays caused by other entities, and you could choose not to revoke or you could choose to extend that deadline, or you could choose to revoke. scheduling a revocation hearing doesn't mean you automatically have to revoke. >>commissioner johnson: right. i would just to -- >> i would just make clear, rather than trying to craft specific time frames that i think we're not -- it would be very challenging, you could simply say we'll have a hearing in two years and consider
1:17 am
reviewation. >>commissioner johnson: okay. -- revocation. >>commissioner johnson: okay. i think that's clear to me. number 2, there's -- even today, we can't constrain a future commission on what they will or will not do, but i do think that we need to be specific in changing the wording here to actually schedule the hearing, 'cause this said is not scheduled unless the project sponsor does not reapply for authorization of their entitlement, which i'm assuming they would. they would put in their application saying whatever the case is happening, so i say that the hearing should happen regardless and if everything's going swimmingly, then it either gets continued or taken off the calendar or there's a no vote at the hearing. >> i think in terms of the may mayor's directive, this is one thing that this commission should be scheduling on every single project, is scheduling a hearing two years out, instead of having it float for two
1:18 am
years and come back for renewal. i think that's an incredible powerful change that we could make. commissioner moore. >>commissioner moore: i think before i would approval, i would rely on some professionals like the architects and the professionals of the trade to give us some reality of what that means. by this commission to craft that at this point, i could not support it, because i asked the architect using a standard experience of what it takes in these typical cycles of schematic design, design development and construction drawings to say what is standardly described as three years. it's in the interests of any developer of any architect to get this stuff out as quickly as possible, because all it does, it takes more money and more time, spinning your wheels. and i think we would be advised to talk to the trades, talk to the professionals, rather than making this thing up as finger in the wind, because i do believe that the mayor's
1:19 am
reminder to us to be more efficient is important. we need to listen to it, but it's not going to be decided here, and i cannot participate in that kind of a discussion. >>vice president richards: commission commissioner johnson? >>commissioner johnson: i would just say the mayor did not remind anyone of anything. he says there is a staff that puts out strategies, not a reminder. >>vice president richards: commissioner fong? >>commissioner fong: so i made a motion to approve with -- as all of the conditions with -- regarding safety of the school next door, protection of the skood next door. commissioner johnson, i appreciate your idea. i think it is cutting edge. i do agree with you, commissioner richards, that if going forward, there's something similar to that. but i also agree with commissioner moore it is too complex and difficult with this ta
1:20 am
tangled to let this be the first project. i think this has a lot to do with the trades with economy pricing, and there could be some great projects coming forward with great sponsors, but they are for whatever reason held up due to forces beyond their control, so my motion to approve still stands. i don't want to support the revocation at the moment, and i'm looking for someone to
1:21 am
1:22 am
1:23 am
1:24 am
1:25 am
if i could make a couple of suggestions that you may want td commission number one to say upe years and condition number two s commissioner johnson suggested r than having these sort of preco, that that the hearing would occd the commission could consider b9
1:26 am
project for construction and poe grounds for revocation to change wording of commission number tw. for the commission to consider revocation revocation of the authorization and consider the s this is a conditional use authorization. >> shame on you for calling the. >> go ahead. >> good evening, commissioners,e project is to establish as condl use authorization to establish a restaurant use called butter an, in an existing commercial spacee corner of 17th and church stree. this space is limited in existig limited commercial use space wia residential zoning district. and per the regulations for limd commercial use, the most restrie neighborhood commercial use stas apply. a when looking at these commercia.
1:27 am
since this project is within a r mieflt castro and thmile of thea conditional use authorization. the project is on the ground fla mixed-use building. while currently vacant, it was t recently used as a laundromat. this concludes the special repo. >> thank you, project sponsor. >> good evening, samomay bujohd. i live in the neighborhood. six months after i moved in, rub
1:28 am
closed. they were closed even before i d speaking to the landlord. there are two other laundromatsn that block. 17th laundry is on the corner eh and sanchez. everyone i've we spoke ton has n favor of the project in the neighborhood. nobody came our neighborhood meo object in any way. the only instance that we heardm anybody is actually an e-mail of support for the addition of my t in the neighborhood. i completely understand the conn regards to laundromats. i myself have gone many a mile y laundry, but in this particular instance, having the space beend for so long and there being two laundromats in good working ordn a block of the space and the otr
1:29 am
laundromat being closed for so i don't ski an applicable issue. >> president hillis: opening itr public comment. seeing none, looking for a motir approval. >> i mak make a motion we appro. >> second. >> on that motion, commissionero approve, commissioner fong. >> did we call public comment 1. >> yes. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner melgar. >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> aye. >> that passes 4-2. that will place us back under yr regular calendar and if -- wher? item -- >> excuse me. >> 12, yes, thank you. court reporter, we're going to -
1:30 am
you're on. commissioner moore. >> we've been sitting here sinc, it's 54:00 157d mostly when foue enter the room, it is impossibls to take a short five-minute breo down the hallway. could we take a quick break? >> i'll only mention that the ct reporter has been here the same. i don't expect this to take lon. >> let's >> good evening and welcome bace san francisco planning commissin regular hearing for thursday nor 30. 2017. through the chair, commissionere didn't allow the wroaning admino rule on 13-d, at this time we'lt up. var 201670 geary boulevard.
1:31 am
>> we closed the public hearinge subject for the requested varia. >> thank you, zoning administra. now we're on item 12 for 1535 er o'farrell street. and 532 jones street. is this a draft and environmentt report. please note that written commenl be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on r 11th, 2017. >> good evening, members of thed evening. i am the eir coordinator for the o'farrell an jones street projee proposed project. i'm joined by my colleagues, cha fordam and the technical specia. members of the team are also pr. the item before you is review ad
1:32 am
comment on the o'farrell streetd jones street environmental impat or draft eir. the purpose is to take the adeqd completeness of the act and ceqn francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval on action is request this time. the public review period began n october 25th, 2017 and will cone until 5:00 p.m. december 11th. 2017. i will now provide a brief over. it is comprised of three parcelh three buildings. the fifth church of christ and g and parking lot on 450 o'farrel. a retail building, and a restaud building at 532 jones street. the project site is in the downn
1:33 am
civic center neighborhood and ld within the uptown tenderloin hil district. the proposed project includes te demolition of all three existing buildings on the project site ad maintain the facade on o'farrel. the project is 13-storey 130--fl mixed use building with up to 16 dwelling units, 6,200 square fof retail and restaurant space andw grade parking. the proposed project would resun add ver change, the significanc0 o'farrell street. this was determined to be a prot level unavoidable impact. other impacts are historic archl
1:34 am
resources are less than signifir less than significant with miti. they we found that the travel cl resources, human remains and aiy could be mitigated to a less thn significant level. other impacts were found sob len significant. a hearing to receive the historc commission's comments on the dre held. i provided you with a copy of ts letter. at the hearing the hpc concurret the proposed project would resua significant and unavoidable impn the historical resource on 450 l street. we found that the full preservan alternative is the preferred alternative. the hpc commented that the objes should be further defined and de
1:35 am
they don't meet the objective. further comments were for the preservation alternative. today the planning department ig comments on the adequacy and acf maintained in the draft eir. for members of the public who wo speak, please state your name fe record and please speak slowly d clearly so the court reporter ce an adequate record. the comments document will respo all relevant, verbal and written comments received during the puc comment period and make redid vo the draft eir when appropriate. those who want to comment may st their comments to the eir coordt 1650 mission street sweet 400 sn francisco by 5:00 p.m. on decem, 2017.
1:36 am
we anticipate publication in thg of next year followed by the eir certification hearing in late sg 2018. unless the commissioners have q, i suggest this public item be a. >> seeing no one on the roll, mh marsha, mike bueller, g smith, d hack. please line up on the side of t. please. >> good evening commissioner. ryan patterson, i represent 540s street hotel llc. we have significant concerns abe draft eshes ir which we anticipn
1:37 am
written form during the comment. today we're concerned about cr-. it could result in physical kajo adjacent resources. my client's building at 540 jont is identified in the draft eir n adjacent historic resource. mitigation measure cr 3-a requis monitoring and management plan. the plan is almost completely ud and left to be worked out in th. likewise, mitigation measures cb requires best practices for architectural resources. this measure is also totally und leaving the adjacent historic rs in danger of significant damage. we have approached the developea variety of concerns with this pt and they want to defer discussil after this process is finished. that's not how it should work au
1:38 am
know. and i hope we can meet soon witr team so we can try to work out e concerns. thank you very much for your ti. >> thank you. next speaker, please, mr. buell. >> good evening, commissioner, e bueller on behalf of san francio heritage. heritage board recently reviewes project in august. we're deeply troubled by severas of the project and eir. in our view, the token preservaf the colonnade and not even the e facade does not mitigate only exacerbates impacts on resource. the project p flies in the facee draft considered by the historic commission. they says defining features neee
1:39 am
maintained. if approved, this project will e whhall low vestige described ann our view the city's preservatiod protection. it is important to distinguish s project from others come before. 450 o'farrell is in a differenty because it is eligible for the california register and fully it inside and out. although heritage strongly suppe alternative, we're skeptical itw for fair alternatives. first the staipted objectives uo judge their potential feasibilis vague and unquantifiable. one objective is to construct well-designed mixed use residenl housing units that contribute te well-being of the community. there is no definition of finanl
1:40 am
feasibility. will any reduction of the unitsl reynolder it unfeasible? who in the community will benef? the other objective is to creatw church facility. even though the size of the conn has not been disclosed nor has e number of students participatine sunday school program revealed. this makes it difficult for thec to understand the actual pragmas and minimum requirements to file church's mission on this site. in assessing the financial feasy of preservation, heritage feelse should be take noon account as e proposed prompt is located in t3 district. the cost savings resulting in nt propping up the colonnade shoule taken into account. we understand that prers vaitioe
1:41 am
colonnade will add 3 to $5 millo the project cost. we understand the developer is g economic feasibility study but r knowledge, that has not been mae available to the public for sc . finally it's important that undd that heritage supports the -- vr vaition -- >> could you repeat the last se. >> we do not propose redevelopmf this site. we support preservation alterna. >> if you can stick around, we e a question or two. next speaker, please. >> i'm richard hack, i live at y for quite a long time now. many working people live at 535, 58585 geary and other buildingsg the site and they'd luke to seer
1:42 am
construction hours like 8 to 6:d sundays off. this asks for numerous exceptio. if there was a proper alternatie site, we could go for that. it would be nice to replace the abandoned properties at 474 o'f. two other problems are the antil behavior of the church and intee of busy traffic that would resun placing backhoes in parkings on o'farrell. we oppose the construction of tl restaurant. no one has mentioned any communy support or activity from the chh despite all the nice words in te proposal. they claim religious exemption m zoning and landmarking. i read the cited statues that bn
1:43 am
free exercise of religion and tt apply though this project. the church is free to practice f the project is approved. they have less than 10 con degr. on wednesday night they had sixt refused entrance by a traveler. i asked if they had three people said yes. i asked her what the steps were. shee said it went up after the d quairk. we know the fencing went up mucr than that when people were sleen the steps. when i mentioned that, i got ann intelligible answer. the church barricaded any activ. they want to partially demolisha landmark and build a new churcht
1:44 am
200 people. they'll never get 200 people. they don't even help each other. newer religions that doesn't det physical existence of reality hn over the appeal they have had. i think it would be good for ust through our heads that not all g is good. given the almost infinite desiro reside here, there is no possibo build -- to lower rents through. we can lower rents by designatis at certain rents or designate tt ordinance. >> next speaker. and stick around i have a questr you. >> good evening commissioners. i support richard. and i think -- i live in the
1:45 am
neighborhood for many, many yea7 years. and this is going to be an extry impact on the society, people ie community who live there. so many homeless people that lie and the church puts the gates td most are african-american homels people there. they close the door, they don'ty hello to them and they treat the garbage. i think the church needs to reao those people to get their suppon order to make -- i don't think d this high 13-storey building ine neighborhood. there is no sunshine, there is r over there. and environmental -- environmenl speaking is very, very dirty. and traffic congestion, everyths created a lot of problem. before you grant them a permissi asked the honorable body to go t
1:46 am
yourself and then make a decisi. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, ple. >> i'm amos gregory. i'm the director and founder ofs project and it's a nonprofit. it's an arts project and sociale project. we first started off. we occupy the -- the space we os shannon street. we first start off our project a mural project. so over the years, we painted oe properties of most of the builds lining shannon street. we've morphed from dealing withk with veterans to a social servie organization where we connect or
1:47 am
unhoused folks in the communitye different organizations that pre those alternatives for them to d proper housing. as a function of what weig we de community, we have to have relas with all the property owners bee paint on their properties. with many of the community resis that are hous housed and unhous. what we found with this projectt it doesn't really address the hg needs that we see going forth fe community because they're putti6 units and they're talking aboutr 13% affordable housing. there is a displacement of fivet control units within the communy itself. and what we've done is we've tao the church, we've talked to the developers and architects to sey
1:48 am
can, you know, amend this propoo allow for more affordable housit then also for the chump itself p up its game in providing servicr those who are most vulnerable ir community who sleep outside ther doorstep every night. we have a partnership in the coy with glide memorial church, thao blocks over to help us with some problem weise address in the neighborhood. so what we oppose this project t stands today. we're not opposed to housing, we understand that housing should a priority an in the city of san , but we support equitable housin. equitable housing for people the unhowsd. we have a lot of students -- un. we have a lot of students in ths community and single families ie community. we want to keep the folks in the community as it changes and proe opportunities for people to excd
1:49 am
excel in their lives. we'd like to be able to see if e possibly one thing we wanted too see if the church would sell the property to the city. they want a new church. well, we can get you space for w church, but how about put this development -- put this properto the hands of those who would cop with a solution and take real ss hardcore community input on to t changes would be positive for neighborhood and build those th. if we can get to is that, i thit there could be, you know, a pose impact in the community. but first, i think that we havee to the rellization that the ch e church is not going to provide n this proposal today. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, this portion of thg
1:50 am
is closed. commissioner moore. >> after reading the historic re evaluation parts one and two whs thorough and reaches deep, it bs rather unsettling to basically t the most serious andthe impact e construction of the building ang with the parts of the facade ist we're getting and what we are g. there a serious im3w5 imbalanceg it at face value. i believe that the summary of pd projts project anprojects and at what is at stake, there is a der that has five objectives. the only alternatives that meete objectives is his project. everything else falls short. that is of great concern to me,e
1:51 am
what we give and get is on manys listening to the public both fre housing side, but more in detaim the historic preservation side d everything that kooms wit comess concern. this particular draft eir shoult anybody on notice of what is ate here. the project is spelled out to se there is something out of balan. i want to leave it with that. i'm in strong support of gettine more detailed comments from thec wit,but i heard enough that this something we should pay great an to. >> thank you, overall question,. bueller, you might be the only n here or maybe commissioner moort know.
1:52 am
i read in the introduction, we a preservation element sitting one shelf for 10 years. can you tea tell mes a layman wt have that adopted? >> i honestly don't know. there were public meetings heldt two years ago on the element and optimism that it was going to bp for adoption. i haven't checked in on that re. >> is that the responsibility oc or us? >> um -- i'm not sure. >> okay, jonas, could you add to the action item list? preservation of the element whes something we want to put on thee or hpc. maybe we should take a look at . thank you. i piggy back on many of the conf the public as well as commissior moore, i did read this eir, i ta
1:53 am
special interest in it. i agree with the hpc that the pt sponsor objectives are vague esy as it is to construct a facility building. i'm not sure that the tradeoff n the demolishing a historic resod what we get for it for the comms worth it. i do question the project sponss objective on page s-23 that in l preservation alternative, we cat figure out where to put a lightd christian science reading room, children's room and etc. given the fact that potentiallye congregation doesn't number in e hundreds. i'm concerned about that. i'm also concerned that we're
1:54 am
demolishing rent-controlled apa. would not support that at all. i do have a question, pacific bd residential hotel, is that an s? it doesn't talk about the numbef rooms or units in this. i'll ask staffs for. it's listed here on page -- it r s-27. i take it for hole tells and srt doesn't say touris tourist hotes residential hotel. potential destruc destruction o. maybe you can comment. i'll defer to staff first. >> i'm not sure if it is sro, bl respond to it. >> sir, if you can come up and a comment on that.
1:55 am
>> pacific bay inn, from what s that it is an sro. i believe it's run by the tenden housing clinic. >> thank you, interesting. i come from a neighborhood where a church of christ scientist thn adaptively reused on delores stt 19th. i look at the preservation altee and my own neighborhood and howe able to get housing in the chrin science church. and i look at the difference ine units and it makes me take paust i'm seeing this in front of me e quite frank with you. any other comments? commissioner johnson. >> thank you. this is an eir hearing, so there many aspects of this project the
1:56 am
not that great and troubling. i will mention something that ts with facadism and this project. i think there are issues with displacement in housing and oths which will be duly got ton. but i think the facadism has dit impact on our analysis in the e. i don't believe that the hpc had their -- i think they're workine report or it's in process. maybe there was one about guiden facadism looking at other urban. i'm thinking seattle that did sf it. we don't have the same guidelinn what we do and do not consider t on historic -- how you can use m to protect historic properties o maintain the essence of the hisc
1:57 am
with. we don't have the guidelines anm challenged by what the eir stait the partial preservation alternd how it does or does not impact e historic resource and keeping te colonnades. i think the person from the hisc site and mentioned something ale lines. i would like the department to o that in terms of what are the gs on facadism and if we don't hav, what are the ro thoughts on it r and how it impacts the historic preservation of the building. i would point out one thing thae really, you know, thinking aboun i read the tentatives that madek about it was former planning commissioner david prowler who s around for a while. he wrote a blog post about presn
1:58 am
and talked about a number of hic buildings that have been redeved over time and the before and af. i'm kind of seeing this won't fs another one of those before and. i want to make sure that facadie done right, but i'm not sure ths what is presented in the projece eir here. as it relates toes did placemend other -- relates to displacemend other issues, i don't think thet the level of making it to an ans for an eir in terms of talking e impact just the way the law is . but when we talk about the proje of those things are problematics of design and that is, i think e sro, i think a person came up ad that in terms of demolishing thd those issues will be dealt with. >> i think one other thing and s
1:59 am
outside of ceqa, thank you for g me, commissioner johnson. i would love to understand how s project should relate should wen alternative adopted. there is skinny language about e have existing on yo urban desigf the 10 priority planning develos from prop 10. but there's it. it doesn't have to go to the eit maybe you can inform us when tht comes what it would be if we apd the preservation element.
2:00 am

6 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on